First Presidency Requiring RE-CONFESSION of sins

[JohnnyL]

Your bishop interviews you, your stake president interviews you, your MTC branch president interviews you and then reminds you every single week to talk to him if you haven't repented. And some mission presidents in the first interview. Still, missionaries get sent home from their missions because they didn't confess. Heck, my MTC friend had to leave because his girlfriend was pregnant. Immaculate conception?? Or just lied like three or four times?

Those who will lie can still lie. Those that are honest are (potentially) penalized.

I had a bishop at BYU that took upon himself the role of savior of the ward; we all had to re-confess and re-repent. Everyone had forced worthiness interviews at the start of the semester. He would phrase questions in a "have you ever . . . ?" way. Most of the ward (I'd say 3/4) had to speak to him weekly for prior trangressions. He then took it upon himself to phone our future bishops and disclose past sins. He made my life hell. I wish I had lied.

I can understand the point of the changed questions, but based on my experiences with these types of questions, honest and repentant individuals are subjected to a second round of repentance (which is not actually repentance, just punishment).

Please do not naively claim the questions don't require re-confession. Please do not say the questions are a mistake. Please defend the questions, or acknowledge they are not only bad and inappropriate questions, but actually abusive in very nature, setting the Atonement at naught.

I certainly felt that this past bishop was an antichrist. It was an abusive experience to have repented, been forgiven, than have a man deny the forgiveness of Christ to me and force me to work out my salvation with him as my proxy. I am disappointed that this approach is being institutionalized.

Ha, that stinks. My bishop at BYU was quite the opposite--he didn't want to hear anything. "I'm sure whatever it was, the Lord has forgiven you. Bye."

I think that one question should be rephrased, as it is, it's really too open to too much.

[underdog]

I assume "beej" means blow job. However, the issue is not the definition of the law of chastity.

For many, there is an issue with the definition of chastity. And, although Clinton's behavior accelerated this, it's nothing new. Albert Carrington served in the Quorum of Twelve for 15 years before he was excommunicated for adultery in 1885. He argued that using the withdrawal method of birth control meant it wasn't adultery.

Where did I indicate lack of clarity on the concept of confessing sins? Confession TO GOD is part of the repentance process. No question about it.

Does your wording indicate that you refuse to accept the church teachings that require confession of certain sins to priesthood leaders?

Please focus on the main point. The main point is that the training on questioning requires a RE-CONFESSION of already-repented-of sins.

The Lord testifies He remembers the sin no more. How can any Christian man (esp a Mormon leader who believes he represents Christ), in good conscience, ask a fellow brother/ sister to regurgitate a sin that the Lord says He doesn't remember?

This boggles the mind.

It boggles your mind, not mine.

No doubt a good leader, like Dr. Tanner personally testifies, could skillfully cover up the damage of these apostate instructions, and even redirect to have a meaningful discussion that may spiritually benefit the young adult.

My point is that the instruction is of the devil. It totally denies the power of the Atonement. We should all rebuke such evil. We should be unified on the Atonement.

You can believe the First Presidency and Twelve are evil or doing evil things, but I reject that belief.

Only a leader who fails to understand the effects of the Atonement will ask these questions. It is like baptizing a pure baby. Such a practice is pure wickedness. The inescapable conclusion is that such a man hasn't experienced the Atonement for himself. For if he had, he would know it is nonsensical to go fishing for past transgressions which the Lord has forgotten, due to past confession and repentance.

I reject this assertion. As someone who once needed to confess to a priesthood leader and go through a more complex repentance process, if any ordained and set apart leader asked about my past sins I would feel no reluctance, shame, or embarrassment over answering those questions. I have never been called as a Bishop, but if such a question was not part of the questionnaire I have heard of, I would be shocked.

Parents should be outraged that their teenage children could be subjected to this anti Christ teaching.

As the parent of a teenager whom I hope will serve a mission, I have no problem with this.

I'm not even debating the necessity of confessing any sin to any man. I know of no scriptural requirement for confessing to a man (priesthood leader who is a man). For the sake of discussion, I'll concede the point.

The assumption here is the teenage adult prospective missionary has confessed to proper priesthood authority and repented of their sin already in the past.

This is your assumption. The frequency with which missionaries are sent home indicates that not everything that should be confessed is being confessed.

You seem think nothing could be more humiliating than being asked these questions. I disagree. Being sent home because of unresolved sins would be far more embarrassing, humiliating, and horrific.

I ask for somebody to defend this horrific, institutional instruction which trains leaders to deny the effects of the Atonement.

I really appreciated Arandur's honest attempt to explain these instructions to local leaders. He seemed to comment objectively. But I didn't see a defense nevertheless.

The two verses I quoted are clear. The sin is forgotten by the Lord. For SLC bureaucrats to ask local leaders to double check people's past sins is highly insulting to the Lord. I believe the Lord is offended. He might truly say something to them like, "What gives you the right or even the idea to ask somebody about a past sin they have repented of and which I have forgiven and forgotten? Because you are not letting them forget their sins and drudging them up, I won't forget yours!"

That's the law of restoration as explained by Alma!

Sins are forgotten if, and only if, the person doesn't fully repent or if they repeat the sin after repenting. It's important to ask these questions to make sure the person really did repent of their sins.

How arrogant and presumptuous to inquire about somebody's past sins that have been repented of, how evil!

I know someone who has a current temple recommend, and I know beyond any doubt that she fornicated at least twice without ever confessing to a Bishop. She even mocks the idea of doing so. If she was asked such pointed questions, and answered honestly, her Bishop or Stake President would be able to stop her from being sent home if her sins were discovered and would help her progress along the path of repentance.

Mind you, the regular temple recommend interview does NOT do this.

Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

You see, respect for the Atonement is given in this question.

But the question to young, impressionable adults is different. Thus the double standard. There's no two ways about it. The question probes the past and asks unnecessarily about sins that TRUTHFULLY have been forgotten by the Lord.

I must have missed it. Where in the announcement did it say this was only for young missionaries?

For any of you here who want to argue the point truly shows your own confusion about the effects of the Atonement.

If it is true the Lord has forgotten (and it is true), how dare a leader attempt to get you to remember forgotten sins!

Have you forgotten your sins? I will never forget mine, at least not in mortality.

How is this not abuse? You're messing with someone's mind and even their testimony of Christ. A person "in authority" is asking a fellow equal who has been made whole by the precious grace and blood of Christ to talk about a sin the Lord teaches no longer exists!

This is sick and wrong.

So... it seems you believe the church leaders have gone completely of the reservation, enacting evil policies that are totally in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is that correct? Does this mean that at the next ward, stake, or general conference you will raise your hand to oppose sustaining the First Presidency and Twelve?
We have been taught by a prophet that God will never allow a church president to lead the church astray. If you believe this policy is leading the church astray, do you no longer believe that the church is lead by prophecy and revelation?

I believe the premise behind the questions (probing into past, repented-of, confessed and forgiven sins) is to catch the liars. The goal is to force a confession. The vision of young people "repenting" and "being forgiven" and "becoming clean" is a noble goal. The means of achieving that is what I'm objecting to.

Using the devil's means to accomplish the Lord's ends is the work of Satan.

Christ honors free will. This process does not.

The honest should not be punished and abused because of the attempt to catch the liars.

What we have here is certain people in high places who have an utter ignorance of how the Atonement works. It's as if there is no attempt to check policies and programs against what the gospel / the Lord says. There should be harmony between the leadership and the Lord, not discord, and obvious disconnects like these questions highlight.

These questions highlight unrighteous dominion at high levels. But what really is manifested is that the SLC bureaucrats are completely unaware of their rejection of the Atonement. That is the disturbing part.

However, I do believe that there are many good, wholesome, loving bishops and stake presidents who understand correct principles of the Atonement and who will lovingly prepare prospective missionaries. Thank God for them.

[inho]

There is no re-confession required within those questions. When asked if you have always lived the law of chasitity you say no if you have not. When asked what you’ve done to repent you answer that question however it applies to you. If you have not repented then you have not confessed previously. If you have repented then explain how. That is not a re-confession. Even if it was it wouldn’t deny the atonement of Jesus Christ nor is it abusive.

5. Full-time missionary service requires living gospel standards. What do you understand about the following standards?
a.The law of chastity
In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent?
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedi ... letter.pdf

Those follow-up questions are an acknowledgement and re-confession of prior sins, not a yes or no question.

This interpretation seems to be correct. The FAQ addresses this question:

Do I need to speak with my bishop and stake president about sins for which I have already repented?

Your bishop and stake president want to help you make sure you are worthy, eligible, and ready for full-time missionary service. It is important to be open with them regarding past transgressions, even previously resolved ones, so that they can help you determine your spiritual preparedness to serve.

[underdog]

I've been thinking a lot about these questions and how Mormon leaders could not only train local leaders to ask these inappropriate questions, but come right out in the open and publish the questions to the world. The openness of the abuse is quite astounding to me.

I've heard responses on this thread to my concerns. As well, I've asked good Mormon TBM friends for their thoughts, I've talked in detail with my wife, and even had a 2-hour FHE "focus group" discussion on it last night, because I've got several kids in late teenage years (incl one on a mission now) who all plan to go on a mission. The next one is set to leave in early Spring 2018.

Here's a summary of my analysis:

I've already made the case above that shows scripturally because the Lord forgives and forgets, that it not only shows a lack of understanding of how the Atonement works, but it crosses the line into abuse by the very nature of the question ("In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent?").

To review, the premise is this: a young woman or man (let's say a 16 year-old) has previously violated the law of chastity in some manner. That person has honestly confessed his/her sins to their bishop and gone through the repentance process with the guidance of priesthood leadership, and come out clean on the other side, and testifies they've been forgiven of the Lord. The bishop is pleased and more importantly, the Lord has forgiven the person. Tears were shed, gratitude expressed, and the healing power of the Atonement was personally experienced.

Now fast forward some amount of time (let's say 2 years to when they're 18 years old). They have desires to serve God and to be called to the work, and begin to get their paperwork in order and do their two interviews, one with the bishop (let's assume this bishop is different from the one 2 years earlier) and the other with their stake president.

During the interview with the bishop, the question is asked: "In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent?"

The young adult now is faced with an odd situation. They KNOW they've been forgiven by the Lord and even cleared by their former bishop. They know the Lord doesn't lie and has forgotten their repented sins, which were scarlet but are now white as snow and wool. This is the point where a young person might get confused. Sitting across from them is a man who should know better, even an authority figure, asking them an irrelevant question, from the standpoint of the Atonement. The question is irrelevant because the person has honestly already repented, paid the price, and been forgiven. So it doesn't matter if they haven't "always lived" the Law of Chastity. They had slipped up in the past. They have repented, and confessed, and been forgiven. So the question is entirely inappropriate and overreaching.

The young man or woman, in an effort to remain honest but not unnecessarily RE-CONFESS, could raise the concern based on holy gospel principles: "I don't think that's a relevant question. With all due respect, is it any of your business? Hypothetically, if I had slipped up in the past and repented and confessed to my earlier bishop, and had been cleared by my bishop, and had been forgiven by the Lord and the sin forgotten by the Lord and I had a special sacred experience that caused me to shout for joy at the grace of my Redeemer, on what basis should I share such confidential material with you?" Obviously, this is a very mature response. Many a youth/ young adult would probably be horrified at the question but not understand what is happening to them. "Did he just ask me about something for which I've already been forgiven? Holy cow, I thought this was totally behind me -- now I have to go through this again?" Imagine the confused feelings and emotions the young adult might have at that moment - but not quite be able to articulate or understand why something didn't seem right. It's not a "fair fight", so to speak. You're being put on the spot in a private setting with an experienced man who has an advantage in life experience, confidence and communication skills.

It's literally the perfect scenario. The door to terrible abuse is opened with the asking of the improper question, and now all the priesthood leader has to do is require the embarrassing details to be shared once again. Voyeuristic men WILL happily open the door by requiring full, detailed re-confession. The Atonement is being set at naught. It is mocked! This is great wickedness perpetuated in the name of the Lord. The Atonement-denying question is a door-opener for severe and traumatizing emotional abuse. And this is being sanctioned by the First Presidency. Their signatures are on the letter.

So how can they openly sign their names to such abuse? I will explain.

My analysis:

First, let me define the players:

There's bishop #1 (who heard the confession and walked the contrite person through the repentance process 2 years ago).
There's bishop #2 (who's asking the questions to a prospective missionary)
There's the stake president.

Observation One:
The First Presidency-endorsed questions (which probe if the candidate has ALWAYS LIVED the Law of Chastity) actually UNDERMINE trust in bishop #1's judgment and decisions. It undermines the authority of the original key-holder (bishop #1).

Let's say 30 lashes were given 2 years ago by bishop #1. "30 lashes" referring to things like, you can't hold a calling, you can't take sacrament, or you must have regular meetings with the bishop, must read the scriptures daily, etc.). Bishop #1's requirements were all fulfilled and complied with by the youth.

Now, 2 years later, bishop #2 and/or stake president is asking for a re-confession, and which may very possibly result in an overruling of bishop #1! They may say, "Sorry, but we need you to take 60 lashes. What was prescribed was not enough! You'll have to wait and show good behavior for another 12 months."

Observation Two:

Why is questioning different for senior couples? Why aren't prospective senior missionary couples asked, "In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent?"

Can you imagine if that question was asked to a couple who've been married for 45 years? Now we have a "fair fight." That conversation would not happen, because bishop #2 and the SP would know they couldn't bulldoze their peer, likely somebody their senior in life experience and gospel knowledge. The senior couple might very well tell bishop #2 and the SP to go fly a kite if a debate ensued about the questions denying the effects of the Atonement. Bishop #2 and /or the SP wouldn't have the same leverage (the ability to derail a culturally-required 2-year mission) over the senior couple.

Observation Three:

The leaders believe they have the keys to absolve sin. They believe they speak for the Lord, even if they contradict DC 58:42 and Isa 1:18.

Main Conclusion:

There are two perspectives on determining qualifications. The first one really can't be argued with. The problem is most LDS leaders and members conflate the two. "To conflate" means you combine two separate ideas into one:

1) Organization's legal right (not bound by scriptures)
2) What the Lord says.

But these should not be combined. Elder Poelman's original 1984 talk wisely sought to separate the two.

With regards to 1), it is clear the institution or organization can specify the qualifications for who represents them and puts on a name tag. They can say you have to wear dresses down to mid calf. They can say male haircuts must look a certain way. They could set ANY stipulations they wanted. They could say you have to look like Amish men, or if you're female you can weigh no more than 145 lbs (as they apparently do with virtually all female General leadership candidates. You gotta look the part! Gotta keep that image! For males, they can require suits to look a certain way, and they do have such requirements.

I have no argument with the organization's right to decide qualifications. As such, if they want to second guess bishop #1'S decisions, they can do that. If they want to overrule the Atonement and tell a young adult they can't serve a mission despite the Lord's forgiveness already been given, THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. No argument from me!

The trouble is when the leaders conflate 1) and 2).

I said I would explain how the First Presidency could sign off publicly on the questions they announced on Friday, Oct 20th. The reason is they do have the legal right to ask whatever they want. The church lawyers say so and so says the law. In fact, the lawyers no doubt suggested the questions be announced upfront so there can be no argument from anybody. And secondly, and more insidiously, they believe they and the local leaders speak for God, despite the obvious contradictions to Scripture (DC 58:42 and Isa 1:18).

Legally, the lawyers have advised the Brethren they can totally violate the privacy of one's mental health, physical health, and spiritual health. It's voluntary. This is what is happening. Prospective missionaries are agreeing to be an open book, where they have ZERO privacy whatsoever. Their entire life must be exposed to the priesthood leaders. Prospective missionaries waive their right to privacy. Every detail must be revealed. No stone is expected to be left unturned.

And I agree, LEGALLY, this cannot be challenged. Again. the organization could require men to have shoulder-length hair. That's its right to decide that. No debate. If you don't want to grow your hair out, then you won't get a name tag and be assigned to labor anywhere.

To crystallize this for you:

Here's the situation: the 16 year-old above (who's repented and been forgiven) is now 18 years-old and says after being questioned by bishop #2, "I know I've been forgiven. I had a sacred spiritual experience and received the grace and love of God and heard the voice of God and know He forgave me."

With Perspective 1 (where the org has the right to decide qualifications for missionary service), the bishop or SP can say, "it doesn't matter, I say you didn't repent 'enough', and you'll have to wait another year, or I may say you can't serve at all."

Nobody can debate the organization's legal right to say who can serve and who can't. That's beyond debate.

But from Perspective 2 (what the Lord says), we now have a debate! The 18 year-old testifies (as did bishop #1) that the Lord forgave the 16 year-old who confessed and repented. However, 2 years late, bishop #2 and/or the SP says, "No He didn't!"

There really is no debate in truth. If you knew the Lord forgave you, would you let a man tell you otherwise? I would expect not. If he does try to tell you otherwise, he is trying to exercise unrighteous dominion upon you. He is abusing his authority. He blasphemes. He sins a grievous sin.

And this is EXACTLY what these First Presidency-endorsed questions set up. They set up such abuse of authority. They create situations where the dignity of the individual is disrespected. They require, in the name of God, obedience to an institution that tramples the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Final Thoughts: The end doesn't justify the means.

One of my active, TBM friends, who happens to be serving as the keys-holding EQ President, explained away the abuse as follows. He said the Church is trying to tighten up the interview process to catch as many liars as possible. We all agree that many prospective and full-time missionaries, for various understandable reasons (though not good or righteous reasons) will lie in interviews and not confess. They often confess in the MTC or on their missions and then get sent home. The Church, my friend says, is trying to catch these unrepentant liars early in the process by asking these invasive questions that require TWO re-confessions. He says the goal is to get "absolute confirmation" that only clean vessels are allowed into the mission field.

I explained to him two things:

• "Absolute confirmation" is absolutely impossible.

• But even if it was, the method is absolutely wrong. You should never compel or shame people into confessions under duress. The end doesn't justify the means.

The Method: Asking for re-confessions.

In 3 words, that is what is happening. The First Presidency is requiring RE-CONFESSIONS of repented sins. They publicly train the leaders to do this, without shame. This is abuse of authority because they believe they speak for the Lord and the Lord is on record as saying He remembers the sin no more (DC 58:42). So REQUIRING re-confession is anti Christ and potentially voyeuristic abuse. Do you want your daughter or son having to go through the humiliating process a SECOND and THIRD time for something already confessed and repented of when it's totally unnecessary because the sin was forgiven and forgotten by the Lord?

Disrespecting Church Key Holders

By requiring bishops and stake presidents to ask for RE-CONFESSIONS, the Church is actually doing a Double and Triple Check of previous decisions of the previous keys-holding bishop. The process disrespects these leaders' authority. This actually throws into question every decision of a leader. Does this mean that members should doubt their leaders' judgments now because they have been vetted and approved by other leaders a 2nd and 3rd time? Does double and triple checking through forced re-confessions help or hurt a member's confidence in their leaders? Does this encourage members to meet and confess their sins voluntarily the first time, now knowing that the man they're going to confess to and who will render a priesthood judgment will be questioned potentially a 2nd and 3rd time in the future, previous to serving a mission?

The process is whack, is it not?

Why not just follow the gospel principles, and not deny the Atonement's power, and not assume prospective missionaries are lying to you, and just love them and preach Jesus Christ? If some liars slip through, they slip through. Satan says, "I'll save them all, not one soul shall be lost." Seems like the First Presidency is sounding like the Adversary. Are we to employee Satan's methods so as to attempt to eliminate all unrepentant liars from missionary service?

Why the preoccupation with RE-CONFESSION?

[Mark]

I've been thinking a lot about these questions and how Mormon leaders could not only train local leaders to ask these inappropriate questions, but come right out in the open and publish the questions to the world. The openness of the abuse is quite astounding to me.

I've heard responses on this thread to my concerns. As well, I've asked good Mormon TBM friends for their thoughts, I've talked in detail with my wife, and even had a 2-hour FHE "focus group" discussion on it last night, because I've got several kids in late teenage years (incl one on a mission now) who all plan to go on a mission. The next one is set to leave in early Spring 2018.

Here's a summary of my analysis:

I've already made the case above that shows scripturally because the Lord forgives and forgets, that it not only shows a lack of understanding of how the Atonement works, but it crosses the line into abuse by the very nature of the question ("In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent?").

To review, the premise is this: a young woman or man (let's say a 16 year-old) has previously violated the law of chastity in some manner. That person has honestly confessed his/her sins to their bishop and gone through the repentance process with the guidance of priesthood leadership, and come out clean on the other side, and testifies they've been forgiven of the Lord. The bishop is pleased and more importantly, the Lord has forgiven the person. Tears were shed, gratitude expressed, and the healing power of the Atonement was personally experienced.

Now fast forward some amount of time (let's say 2 years to when they're 18 years old). They have desires to serve God and to be called to the work, and begin to get their paperwork in order and do their two interviews, one with the bishop (let's assume this bishop is different from the one 2 years earlier) and the other with their stake president.

During the interview with the bishop, the question is asked: "In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent?"

The young adult now is faced with an odd situation. They KNOW they've been forgiven by the Lord and even cleared by their former bishop. They know the Lord doesn't lie and has forgotten their repented sins, which were scarlet but are now white as snow and wool. This is the point where a young person might get confused. Sitting across from them is a man who should know better, even an authority figure, asking them an irrelevant question, from the standpoint of the Atonement. The question is irrelevant because the person has honestly already repented, paid the price, and been forgiven. So it doesn't matter if they haven't "always lived" the Law of Chastity. They had slipped up in the past. They have repented, and confessed, and been forgiven. So the question is entirely inappropriate and overreaching.

The young man or woman, in an effort to remain honest but not unnecessarily RE-CONFESS, could raise the concern based on holy gospel principles: "I don't think that's a relevant question. With all due respect, is it any of your business? Hypothetically, if I had slipped up in the past and repented and confessed to my earlier bishop, and had been cleared by my bishop, and had been forgiven by the Lord and the sin forgotten by the Lord and I had a special sacred experience that caused me to shout for joy at the grace of my Redeemer, on what basis should I share such confidential material with you?" Obviously, this is a very mature response. Many a youth/ young adult would probably be horrified at the question but not understand what is happening to them. "Did he just ask me about something for which I've already been forgiven? Holy cow, I thought this was totally behind me -- now I have to go through this again?" Imagine the confused feelings and emotions the young adult might have at that moment - but not quite be able to articulate or understand why something didn't seem right. It's not a "fair fight", so to speak. You're being put on the spot in a private setting with an experienced man who has an advantage in life experience, confidence and communication skills.

It's literally the perfect scenario. The door to terrible abuse is opened with the asking of the improper question, and now all the priesthood leader has to do is require the embarrassing details to be shared once again. Voyeuristic men WILL happily open the door by requiring full, detailed re-confession. The Atonement is being set at naught. It is mocked! This is great wickedness perpetuated in the name of the Lord. The Atonement-denying question is a door-opener for severe and traumatizing emotional abuse. And this is being sanctioned by the First Presidency. Their signatures are on the letter.

So how can they openly sign their names to such abuse? I will explain.

My analysis:

First, let me define the players:

There's bishop #1 (who heard the confession and walked the contrite person through the repentance process 2 years ago).
There's bishop #2 (who's asking the questions to a prospective missionary)
There's the stake president.

Observation One:
The First Presidency-endorsed questions (which probe if the candidate has ALWAYS LIVED the Law of Chastity) actually UNDERMINE trust in bishop #1's judgment and decisions. It undermines the authority of the original key-holder (bishop #1).

Let's say 30 lashes were given 2 years ago by bishop #1. "30 lashes" referring to things like, you can't hold a calling, you can't take sacrament, or you must have regular meetings with the bishop, must read the scriptures daily, etc.). Bishop #1's requirements were all fulfilled and complied with by the youth.

Now, 2 years later, bishop #2 and/or stake president is asking for a re-confession, and which may very possibly result in an overruling of bishop #1! They may say, "Sorry, but we need you to take 60 lashes. What was prescribed was not enough! You'll have to wait and show good behavior for another 12 months."

Observation Two:

Why is questioning different for senior couples? Why aren't prospective senior missionary couples asked, "In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent?"

Can you imagine if that question was asked to a couple who've been married for 45 years? Now we have a "fair fight." That conversation would not happen, because bishop #2 and the SP would know they couldn't bulldoze their peer, likely somebody their senior in life experience and gospel knowledge. The senior couple might very well tell bishop #2 and the SP to go fly a kite if a debate ensued about the questions denying the effects of the Atonement. Bishop #2 and /or the SP wouldn't have the same leverage (the ability to derail a culturally-required 2-year mission) over the senior couple.

Observation Three:

The leaders believe they have the keys to absolve sin. They believe they speak for the Lord, even if they contradict DC 58:42 and Isa 1:18.

Main Conclusion:

There are two perspectives on determining qualifications. The first one really can't be argued with. The problem is most LDS leaders and members conflate the two. "To conflate" means you combine two separate ideas into one:

1) Organization's legal right (not bound by scriptures)
2) What the Lord says.

But these should not be combined. Elder Poelman's original 1984 talk wisely sought to separate the two.

With regards to 1), it is clear the institution or organization can specify the qualifications for who represents them and puts on a name tag. They can say you have to wear dresses down to mid calf. They can say male haircuts must look a certain way. They could set ANY stipulations they wanted. They could say you have to look like Amish men, or if you're female you can weigh no more than 145 lbs (as they apparently do with virtually all female General leadership candidates. You gotta look the part! Gotta keep that image! For males, they can require suits to look a certain way, and they do have such requirements.

I have no argument with the organization's right to decide qualifications. As such, if they want to second guess bishop #1'S decisions, they can do that. If they want to overrule the Atonement and tell a young adult they can't serve a mission despite the Lord's forgiveness already been given, THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. No argument from me!

The trouble is when the leaders conflate 1) and 2).

I said I would explain how the First Presidency could sign off publicly on the questions they announced on Friday, Oct 20th. The reason is they do have the legal right to ask whatever they want. The church lawyers say so and so says the law. In fact, the lawyers no doubt suggested the questions be announced upfront so there can be no argument from anybody. And secondly, and more insidiously, they believe they and the local leaders speak for God, despite the obvious contradictions to Scripture (DC 58:42 and Isa 1:18).

Legally, the lawyers have advised the Brethren they can totally violate the privacy of one's mental health, physical health, and spiritual health. It's voluntary. This is what is happening. Prospective missionaries are agreeing to be an open book, where they have ZERO privacy whatsoever. Their entire life must be exposed to the priesthood leaders. Prospective missionaries waive their right to privacy. Every detail must be revealed. No stone is expected to be left unturned.

And I agree, LEGALLY, this cannot be challenged. Again. the organization could require men to have shoulder-length hair. That's its right to decide that. No debate. If you don't want to grow your hair out, then you won't get a name tag and be assigned to labor anywhere.

To crystallize this for you:

Here's the situation: the 16 year-old above (who's repented and been forgiven) is now 18 years-old and says after being questioned by bishop #2, "I know I've been forgiven. I had a sacred spiritual experience and received the grace and love of God and heard the voice of God and know He forgave me."

With Perspective 1 (where the org has the right to decide qualifications for missionary service), the bishop or SP can say, "it doesn't matter, I say you didn't repent 'enough', and you'll have to wait another year, or I may say you can't serve at all."

Nobody can debate the organization's legal right to say who can serve and who can't. That's beyond debate.

But from Perspective 2 (what the Lord says), we now have a debate! The 18 year-old testifies (as did bishop #1) that the Lord forgave the 16 year-old who confessed and repented. However, 2 years late, bishop #2 and/or the SP says, "No He didn't!"

There really is no debate in truth. If you knew the Lord forgave you, would you let a man tell you otherwise? I would expect not. If he does try to tell you otherwise, he is trying to exercise unrighteous dominion upon you. He is abusing his authority. He blasphemes. He sins a grievous sin.

And this is EXACTLY what these First Presidency-endorsed questions set up. They set up such abuse of authority. They create situations where the dignity of the individual is disrespected. They require, in the name of God, obedience to an institution that tramples the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Final Thoughts: The end doesn't justify the means.

One of my active, TBM friends, who happens to be serving as the keys-holding EQ President, explained away the abuse as follows. He said the Church is trying to tighten up the interview process to catch as many liars as possible. We all agree that many prospective and full-time missionaries, for various understandable reasons (though not good or righteous reasons) will lie in interviews and not confess. They often confess in the MTC or on their missions and then get sent home. The Church, my friend says, is trying to catch these unrepentant liars early in the process by asking these invasive questions that require TWO re-confessions. He says the goal is to get "absolute confirmation" that only clean vessels are allowed into the mission field.

I explained to him two things:

• "Absolute confirmation" is absolutely impossible.

• But even if it was, the method is absolutely wrong. You should never compel or shame people into confessions under duress. The end doesn't justify the means.

The Method: Asking for re-confessions.

In 3 words, that is what is happening. The First Presidency is requiring RE-CONFESSIONS of repented sins. They publicly train the leaders to do this, without shame. This is abuse of authority because they believe they speak for the Lord and the Lord is on record as saying He remembers the sin no more (DC 58:42). So REQUIRING re-confession is anti Christ and potentially voyeuristic abuse. Do you want your daughter or son having to go through the humiliating process a SECOND and THIRD time for something already confessed and repented of when it's totally unnecessary because the sin was forgiven and forgotten by the Lord?

Disrespecting Church Key Holders

By requiring bishops and stake presidents to ask for RE-CONFESSIONS, the Church is actually doing a Double and Triple Check of previous decisions of the previous keys-holding bishop. The process disrespects these leaders' authority. This actually throws into question every decision of a leader. Does this mean that members should doubt their leaders' judgments now because they have been vetted and approved by other leaders a 2nd and 3rd time? Does double and triple checking through forced re-confessions help or hurt a member's confidence in their leaders? Does this encourage members to meet and confess their sins voluntarily the first time, now knowing that the man they're going to confess to and who will render a priesthood judgment will be questioned potentially a 2nd and 3rd time in the future, previous to serving a mission?

The process is whack, is it not?

Why not just follow the gospel principles, and not deny the Atonement's power, and not assume prospective missionaries are lying to you, and just love them and preach Jesus Christ? If some liars slip through, they slip through. Satan says, "I'll save them all, not one soul shall be lost." Seems like the First Presidency is sounding like the Adversary. Are we to employee Satan's methods so as to attempt to eliminate all unrepentant liars from missionary service?

Why the preoccupation with RE-CONFESSION?

Speaking of preoccupation... get a hobby dog. Your obsession against all things LDS church is bordering on the unhealthy. For the sake of your family disengage and find something fulfilling to spend your time on. Join the gym and take your frustrations out on the weights. Go hit a golf ball as hard as you can. Anything. Just stop obsessing about the LDS church. If you so despise it drop out and find other positive things to research. Your negativity is going to damage your health.

[shadow]

It sucks that actions have consequences.

The Lord said he doesn't remember repented of sins but that doesn't mean that those sins never happened. It doesn't mean that He forgets that He alone and personally atoned for those sins. He has those marks forever engraved upon His resurrected body. We certainly don't forget them! Talking about them isn't a re-confession. It's saying, "yeah, I had a problem and the problem was fixed and here's my testimony of the atonement." In many cases though, there was a problem that still needs repenting of. Sometimes the Lord is merciful "to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints" by applying practices (a series of questions) for everyone to answer.

"Indeed, moral standards must be maintained. In large measure, those who are disobedient punish themselves. As the Lord said through Jeremiah: “Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee.” Those entrusted with judicial responsibility in the kingdom of God must see that the Church remains clean so that the living waters of life flow unimpeded." -Elder Faust

You're out of line yet again, underdog.

[Fiannan]

It is not like they are going to re-open some sort of case against prospective missionaries.

[eddie]

Does it ever get draining for you to relentlessly attack a church you don't believe in?

Do you have something to contribute or are you honestly content to look the other way as abuse happens?

You honestly have no opinion on the questions I have raised?

You are okay with two priesthood leaders in two separate interviews asking you to reconfess something that you've already confessed and repented of?

Do you see anything analogous to your behavior and the behavior of faithful Catholics who turn a blind eye when abuse is reported of pedophile priests?

Does it ever get draining for you to relentlessly attack a church you don't believe in?

[Arenera]

By the way underdog, do you have a temple recommend? I suspect so. How is it that you have one?

You are not being honest in your dealings with your fellow man. You associate with the Snufferites, an apostate group, proclaim that Snuffer is a prophet.

How is it you have a temple recommend?

In not being honest, you are certainly an issue if any of your kids want to go on a mission for the Church. A missionary was sent home because his father confessed to being a Snufferite, even giving his son The Second Comforter book. The son had it on his mission, wasn’t reading it or preaching it, but it still got him sent home.

[EdGoble]

If a person is going into an interview for a mission, one would expect to think they are fully worthy to perform that call (always isn't the case hence this change as it's clear we all know there are a lot of worthiness issues for missionaries hence these changes) but I take exception that past transgressions are held against a prospective missionary until they explain their previous repentance.

It doesn't seem to matter what the Brethren do. Everybody wants to tell them how to run the Church. The brethren are within their rights to disqualify people for certain privileges that they have lost because of past actions, repentance or not.

If the purpose is to put someone under a microscope in order to find out if they are to be disqualified or not, obviously has nothing to do with repentance. It has to do with disqualification based on past action, period, and therefore, they must find out the extent of what has been done to know if there should be a disqualification. The purpose of raising the bar was to provide for the possibility of disqualification. If someone doesn't agree with the right for disqualification from certain privileges, they aren't living in the real world, and they are just griping about it, and they ought to be happy they have any privileges at all.

I personally have decided that I want to receive what I can get out of membership in this Church, and profit from the blessings of being a member, and keep my nose out of things that I have no authority to meddle in, and that means that I keep my nose out of things that have nothing to do with me. The Church has the right of institutional revelation, and fault-finders don't have evidence that this practice is not based on that very thing. They have no idea or evidence that Jesus Christ is not behind this thing, as much as he was the revelation on gays and their children and the policy that governs that. Because they do not have the right to the institutional revelation. The institution does. They only have a right to receive confirmation, and fault-finders never are in the right spiritual state to qualify for such a thing, as they have distanced themselves from the Holy Ghost by covenant breaking, by speaking evil of the Lord's anointed. So how do they presume to know how to tell Jesus Christ how to run things since they are out of harmony and in the wrong spirit, and cannot discern? They should keep their noses out of things where they have no keys, which are the rights to presidency.

People cannot keep thinking that there are no consequences for sin, just because someone has repented. Just because a sin can be expunged in the book of life doesn't take away the other consequences, nor does it cause backwards causality where the sin was never committed in the past. It doesn't erase the past. It only resets a persons life back on the right track toward a better future.

If a pregnancy results from fornication, repentance doesn't cause the pregnancy to be erased in the time-space continuum. It doesn't cause the act of fornication to be erased from the time-space continuum either. It only changes whether the Savior steps in and fills the demands of justice. The Savior's atonement heals, and fixes things. But it never truly makes those things go away. It only makes something good out of them as to what their meaning is to the future.

We live in a day and age where people have been making a mockery out of the repentance process, and Jesus Christ has apparently been seeing to it that policies are put in place to hold those people accountable, and to help them actually repent fully and qualify for future privileges in the Church, even though they may have forfeited certain privileges. They ought to be shouting praises to the Lord that he is having mercy on them at all, and pulling them out of the bowels of hell, rather than complaining about losing a certain privileges. Nobody said that these people have lost their exaltation ultimately. They ought to be glad that they have any privileges at all. They are beggers, and are not in a position to tell Jesus Christ what he can or cannot do.

[Michelle]

Ever seen the damage done to an area that had to being closed because of an unworthy missionary? It can affect generations.

Not to mention the other missionaries that get dragged into the sin or consequences.

We can be forgiven of sins without all the consequences being removed. In fact, that is pretty common.

For example, if you commit a crime and sincerely repent, you still have to submit to the consequence of the law.

If you tell a lie and repent, the Lord may forgive you, but the individual may not.

I see nothing wrong with the questions.

[dafty]

case closed...?

[captainfearnot]

I think there is a definite brainwashing element to compelling multiple confessions, but that's what missionaries are signing up for. What do you think not being able to talk to your parents except for a few minutes on Christmas and Mothers Day is all about? Or not being allowed to read the newspaper? Disallowing use of first names? None of this is a secret, nor is it a bad thing so long as people willingly consent to it.

[underdog]

Talking about them isn't a re-confession. It's saying, "yeah, I had a problem and the problem was fixed and here's my testimony of the atonement." In many cases though, there was a problem that still needs repenting of.

Shadow,

What you say validates a key point I made, which is that the original keys-holding bishop's judgment is being questioned a second and third time by other keys-holding authorities.

Please think it through. And don't just argue a contrary point because you think you're part of a winning team. Talk principle please.

You say, "in many cases...there was a problem that still needs repenting of." This statement questions the judgment of the original bishop. He CLEARED the person originally. The Lord confirmed it and the member testifies the Lord forgave him/her for that past sin.

For a separate bishop and / or stake president to object after the fact and say "you still need to repent further" is arbitrary. It's truly whack!

How about not playing God!

If you're going to play God, why not subject senior prospective missionaries to the same standard (of requiring re-confession)?

Why, Shadow, do you want to argue against the Atonement?

Or you can concede and say, "Underdog, you're right, the leaders are speaking not for the Lord, but for the organization, and they do have the legal right to make you jump through as many hoops as they see fit."

I'm okay with the legal right argument. I'm not okay with them claiming to speak for the Lord and then nullifying the effects of the Atonement.

[dafty]

Does it question the Bishops authority or sincerity of the sinners confession?

[underdog]

I think there is a definite brainwashing element to compelling multiple confessions, but that's what missionaries are signing up for. What do you think not being able to talk to your parents except for a few minutes on Christmas and Mothers Day is all about? Or not being allowed to read the newspaper? Disallowing use of first names? None of this is a secret, nor is it a bad thing so long as people willingly consent to it.

Captain, I agree with your statement "as long as people willingly consent to it." That's exactly right. And for that I'm grateful the questions have been formally announced and published.

The heartburn is over leaders who conflate representing the institution with representing the Lord. They can set whatever missionary requirements for the earthly institution, but if they claim to represent the Lord, they must not stay his hand, they must not say "He didn't forgive, when the member and even former bishop say He did forgive and forget."

That's the issue I'm raising.

The truth I'm drawing attention to is the institution is separate and apart from the Lord. Leaders conflate the two and when they do that they abuse people. If they understood the difference, the abuse could be mitigated.

[Serragon]

When I was called as an EQ president, one of the counselors I wanted was denied by the Stake President because he had committed adultery in the past and was not allowed to work at the veil by our temple rules. Our SP wanted all EQ presidencies to also be veil workers.

I asked my Bishop about this as I was at that time still serving as an Exec Secretary. It seemed not right to me that a man who had fully repented was not allowed to fill certain callings or work at the veil. He said that although forgiveness may come immediately, repentance may not. That it sometimes takes time to see if a man has truly turned away from that sin. And because we as leaders cannot always see into the hearts or people as Christ does, these blanket rules protect the Church even though they may be sometimes unfair.

This was a long time ago, and I still struggle with these ideas. I understand what Underdog is saying, but I also understand why the question is there.

[shadow]

Talking about them isn't a re-confession. It's saying, "yeah, I had a problem and the problem was fixed and here's my testimony of the atonement." In many cases though, there was a problem that still needs repenting of.

Shadow,

What you say validates a key point I made, which is that the original keys-holding bishop's judgment is being questioned a second and third time by other keys-holding authorities.

Please think it through. And don't just argue a contrary point because you think you're part of a winning team. Talk principle please.

You say, "in many cases...there was a problem that still needs repenting of." This statement questions the judgment of the original bishop. He CLEARED the person originally. The Lord confirmed it and the member testifies the Lord forgave him/her for that past sin.

For a separate bishop and / or stake president to object after the fact and say "you still need to repent further" is arbitrary. It's truly whack!

How about not playing God!

If you're going to play God, why not subject senior prospective missionaries to the same standard (of requiring re-confession)?

Why, Shadow, do you want to argue against the Atonement?

Or you can concede and say, "Underdog, you're right, the leaders are speaking not for the Lord, but for the organization, and they do have the legal right to make you jump through as many hoops as they see fit."

I'm okay with the legal right argument. I'm not okay with them claiming to speak for the Lord and then nullifying the effects of the Atonement.

You read into things that don't exist.

Underdog, as usual, you're wrong.

[underdog]

Does it question the Bishops authority or sincerity of the sinners confession?

Dafty, the premise I set up was that the sinner gave an honest confession. The confession was honest. The repentance was real and sincere.

If you are making the argument that the 2nd bishop and stake president aren't questioning the first bishop, but the sinner's sincerity of confession, then that validates an earlier point: that the Church is trying to find the liars and force a "complete" confession. Which in turn means that they are engaging in an abusive process which punishes especially the honest, pure, repentant soul by requiring a re-confession.

However, the fact remains that the first bishop authoritatively declared the repentant member to have repented fully and completely. So for the future bishop and stake president to question anything about the original case would necessarily mean that they don't respect the discernment and judgment of the first bishop. They pit themselves against a former bishop. Who's right? And doesn't the member's testimony mean anything? The "who's right" question becomes a pissing contest between the former bishop and current one. It's an unnecessary fight which throws light on the flaws in the process. Everything is arbitrary. With the main rule being the #1 rule: do what your leaders tell you to do. Not your past leaders, but your current leaders. Do not question authority. Don't worry that what we say ignores the Atonement. We can't lead you astray.

The answer is found in the scriptures. The answer is that when the Lord forgives, He forgets the sin. Making the second and third inquisition a complete waste of time and slap in the face of the Savior.

Of course, as institutional reps, the bishop and stake president can slap the Lord in the face and make up their own rules. They have the legal right to arbitrarily make up whatever qualifications they want to, as representatives of the organization.

[underdog]

Talking about them isn't a re-confession. It's saying, "yeah, I had a problem and the problem was fixed and here's my testimony of the atonement." In many cases though, there was a problem that still needs repenting of.

Shadow,

What you say validates a key point I made, which is that the original keys-holding bishop's judgment is being questioned a second and third time by other keys-holding authorities.

Please think it through. And don't just argue a contrary point because you think you're part of a winning team. Talk principle please.

You say, "in many cases...there was a problem that still needs repenting of." This statement questions the judgment of the original bishop. He CLEARED the person originally. The Lord confirmed it and the member testifies the Lord forgave him/her for that past sin.

For a separate bishop and / or stake president to object after the fact and say "you still need to repent further" is arbitrary. It's truly whack!

How about not playing God!

If you're going to play God, why not subject senior prospective missionaries to the same standard (of requiring re-confession)?

Why, Shadow, do you want to argue against the Atonement?

Or you can concede and say, "Underdog, you're right, the leaders are speaking not for the Lord, but for the organization, and they do have the legal right to make you jump through as many hoops as they see fit."

I'm okay with the legal right argument. I'm not okay with them claiming to speak for the Lord and then nullifying the effects of the Atonement.

You read into things that don't exist.

Underdog, as usual, you're wrong.

I'll take your inability to rebut and refusal to answer my simple questions to you above as an unwilling confession that my points are valid.

[dafty]

Does it question the Bishops authority or sincerity of the sinners confession?

Dafty, the premise I set up was that the sinner gave an honest confession. The confession was honest. The repentance was real and sincere.

If you are making the argument that the 2nd bishop and stake president aren't questioning the first bishop, but the sinner's sincerity of confession, then that validates an earlier point: that the Church is trying to find the liars and force a "complete" confession. Which in turn means that they are engaging in an abusive process which punishes especially the honest, pure, repentant soul by requiring a re-confession.

However, the fact remains that the first bishop authoritatively declared the repentant member to have repented fully and completely. So for the future bishop and stake president to question anything about the original case would necessarily mean that they don't respect the discernment and judgment of the first bishop. They pit themselves against a former bishop. Who's right? And doesn't the member's testimony mean anything? The "who's right" question becomes a pissing contest between the former bishop and current one. It's an unnecessary fight which throws light on the flaws in the process. Everything is arbitrary. With the main rule being the #1 rule: do what your leaders tell you to do. Not your past leaders, but your current leaders. Do not question authority. Don't worry that what we say ignores the Atonement. We can't lead you astray.

The answer is found in the scriptures. The answer is that when the Lord forgives, He forgets the sin. Making the second and third inquisition a complete waste of time and slap in the face of the Savior.

Of course, as institutional reps, the bishop and stake president can slap the Lord in the face and make up their own rules. They have the legal right to arbitrarily make up whatever qualifications they want to, as representatives of the organization.

I understand...However, I met too many people that claim they repented and the Lord has forgiven them, yet their actions prove to the contrary and so I would be inclined to give the brethren the benefit of doubt on this one...especially as I believe that truly repentant person would be naively willing 'to walk 2 miles when asked to walk 1'...but Im glad you do stick up for those of truly contrite spirit x

[underdog]

When I was called as an EQ president, one of the counselors I wanted was denied by the Stake President because he had committed adultery in the past and was not allowed to work at the veil by our temple rules. Our SP wanted all EQ presidencies to also be veil workers.

I asked my Bishop about this as I was at that time still serving as an Exec Secretary. It seemed not right to me that a man who had fully repented was not allowed to fill certain callings or work at the veil. He said that although forgiveness may come immediately, repentance may not. That it sometimes takes time to see if a man has truly turned away from that sin. And because we as leaders cannot always see into the hearts or people as Christ does, these blanket rules protect the Church even though they may be sometimes unfair.

This was a long time ago, and I still struggle with these ideas. I understand what Underdog is saying, but I also understand why the question is there.

Thank you, Seragon, for sharing that story.

That's a great illustration of the point that reps of the earthly organization can set their own qualifications. The SP required veil workers to constitute EQ presidencies. That is his prerogative. But he should be careful to not speak for the Lord and say that that man didn't fully repent. He was in fact saying that. He was judging that man as less worthy. Joseph on the other hand would excommunicate somebody and then a week later admit them back into full fellowship. He believed people. He didn't judge them. He left that to the Lord.

With what judgment we judge others, the same judgment we will be judged by! That SP of yours will be held to a much higher level at the last day. If he wants leniency, he will be surprised and disappointed by the harshness of the Lord's judgment but will come to know he has nobody but himself to blame.

[shadow]

Talking about them isn't a re-confession. It's saying, "yeah, I had a problem and the problem was fixed and here's my testimony of the atonement." In many cases though, there was a problem that still needs repenting of.

Shadow,

What you say validates a key point I made, which is that the original keys-holding bishop's judgment is being questioned a second and third time by other keys-holding authorities.

Please think it through. And don't just argue a contrary point because you think you're part of a winning team. Talk principle please.

You say, "in many cases...there was a problem that still needs repenting of." This statement questions the judgment of the original bishop. He CLEARED the person originally. The Lord confirmed it and the member testifies the Lord forgave him/her for that past sin.

For a separate bishop and / or stake president to object after the fact and say "you still need to repent further" is arbitrary. It's truly whack!

How about not playing God!

If you're going to play God, why not subject senior prospective missionaries to the same standard (of requiring re-confession)?

Why, Shadow, do you want to argue against the Atonement?

Or you can concede and say, "Underdog, you're right, the leaders are speaking not for the Lord, but for the organization, and they do have the legal right to make you jump through as many hoops as they see fit."

I'm okay with the legal right argument. I'm not okay with them claiming to speak for the Lord and then nullifying the effects of the Atonement.

You read into things that don't exist.

Underdog, as usual, you're wrong.

I'll take your inability to rebut and refusal to answer my simple questions to you above as an unwilling confession that my points are valid.

The question isn't "What sins have you confessed to?"

[Serragon]

When I was called as an EQ president, one of the counselors I wanted was denied by the Stake President because he had committed adultery in the past and was not allowed to work at the veil by our temple rules. Our SP wanted all EQ presidencies to also be veil workers.

I asked my Bishop about this as I was at that time still serving as an Exec Secretary. It seemed not right to me that a man who had fully repented was not allowed to fill certain callings or work at the veil. He said that although forgiveness may come immediately, repentance may not. That it sometimes takes time to see if a man has truly turned away from that sin. And because we as leaders cannot always see into the hearts or people as Christ does, these blanket rules protect the Church even though they may be sometimes unfair.

This was a long time ago, and I still struggle with these ideas. I understand what Underdog is saying, but I also understand why the question is there.

Thank you, Seragon, for sharing that story.

That's a great illustration of the point that reps of the earthly organization can set their own qualifications. The SP required veil workers to constitute EQ presidencies. That is his prerogative. But he should be careful to not speak for the Lord and say that that man didn't fully repent. He was in fact saying that. He was judging that man as less worthy. Joseph on the other hand would excommunicate somebody and then a week later admit them back into full fellowship. He believed people. He didn't judge them. He left that to the Lord.

With what judgment we judge others, the same judgment we will be judged by! That SP of yours will be held to a much higher level at the last day. If he wants leniency, he will be surprised and disappointed by the harshness of the Lord's judgment but will come to know he has nobody but himself to blame.

The rest of the story is that after much prayer I went back to the SP and told him that I felt this man was whom the Lord wanted in this position. The SP approved it.

We shouldn't be so quick to judge others, as we often don't know the entire story.

[underdog]

Does it question the Bishops authority or sincerity of the sinners confession?

Dafty, the premise I set up was that the sinner gave an honest confession. The confession was honest. The repentance was real and sincere.

If you are making the argument that the 2nd bishop and stake president aren't questioning the first bishop, but the sinner's sincerity of confession, then that validates an earlier point: that the Church is trying to find the liars and force a "complete" confession. Which in turn means that they are engaging in an abusive process which punishes especially the honest, pure, repentant soul by requiring a re-confession.

However, the fact remains that the first bishop authoritatively declared the repentant member to have repented fully and completely. So for the future bishop and stake president to question anything about the original case would necessarily mean that they don't respect the discernment and judgment of the first bishop. They pit themselves against a former bishop. Who's right? And doesn't the member's testimony mean anything? The "who's right" question becomes a pissing contest between the former bishop and current one. It's an unnecessary fight which throws light on the flaws in the process. Everything is arbitrary. With the main rule being the #1 rule: do what your leaders tell you to do. Not your past leaders, but your current leaders. Do not question authority. Don't worry that what we say ignores the Atonement. We can't lead you astray.

The answer is found in the scriptures. The answer is that when the Lord forgives, He forgets the sin. Making the second and third inquisition a complete waste of time and slap in the face of the Savior.

Of course, as institutional reps, the bishop and stake president can slap the Lord in the face and make up their own rules. They have the legal right to arbitrarily make up whatever qualifications they want to, as representatives of the organization.

I understand...However, I met too many people that claim they repented and the Lord has forgiven them, yet their actions prove to the contrary and so I would be inclined to give the brethren the benefit of doubt on this one...especially as I believe that truly repentant person would be naively willing 'to walk 2 miles when asked to walk 1'...but Im glad you do stick up for those of truly contrite spirit x

Dafty, I have heard of many members claim they have seen many liars get through the process. You say you are inclined to give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt. I believe the Brethren are indeed motivated by the desire to catch the liars, to the abuse and trauma of the innocent.

I do not believe it's okay to abuse and traumatize the innocent to catch the guilty.

A good analogy is the current surveillance grid being set up in America: to travel by air, you are now subject to scanning equipment that emit harmful rays that cause cancer, sexual molestation in the form of "legal" groping and a violation of the 4th amendment, not to mention the confiscation of all types of products from food to shaving cream, etc. The justification? To catch a terrorist.

Americans' rights are violated left and right under the guise of safety.

The Church violates a young adult's right to privacy and sets the Atonement at naught under the guise of sending out only the righteous and pure.